No, I think criminal backgrounds should have nothing to do with welfare benefits.
If you don't understand the point either read the piece or just ask.
Throwing out irrelevant numbers over and again does nothing for you.
Your continued fantasy of me is duly noted. I have no doubt you'll tell us morelol cuck.
of what you picture me doing.
lol "I'm not a stat guy"
You've been proven to be not much of a reading comprehension guy.
I seriously don't understand how anyone can be this ing re ed.
You think that testing .00017% of all those who receive welfare benefits cons utes a representative sample - and - supports the decision to not continue drug testing. That's ing ridiculous because .00017% is so miniscule that it can't support a policy decision one way or another. I may not be a stats guy - but even I understand that you can't make sound policy decisions when they're based on one-thousandth of a percentage point.
Your point that I quoted ad naseum was 40 people is good enough to support a financial decision to quit drug testing. What you don't seem to get is the obvious fact that .00017% - the 40 people tested divided by the 230,000 welfare recipients - is in no way shape or form representative of the population. Also note that .00017, 40, and 230,000 are not random numbers - but are pulled directly from the article who's you are gargling.
I understand simple life skills are beyond you. Hopefully this breakdown is clear enough for your mongoloid brain to comprehend.
no specifics mentioned.
my guess is child protective services would step in and put the kids into foster care.
as an aside, there may even be a question whether child abuse charges could be brought up on the parent that fails the test.
This meltdown makes it clear that you still didn't get the simple point of the costs of test reimbursement versus withholding funds.
To be sure, the math wasn't clearly laid out, but the numbers are there for anyone that can do 6th grade word problems to verify that yes, the costs of testing outweigh the savings of withholding.
But we know you aren't a stat guy.
We also know you aren't a reading comprehension guy.
We know you are more of a cuck fantasy guy.
Don't forget to drug test the Hurricane victims before they take advantage of FEMA.
.......and spend the 2 grand they get on thier disaster relief credit card at Champs. Right mouse?
It would be interesting to me how they'd handle that. I don't think CPS would remove kids just because their parents failed a drug test. Yet, kids of drug addicts don't deserve to be denied welfare. Originally I had read the parents would need to find a representative that was drug free to manage the child's benefits. But that doesn't seem practical to me either. So, I'm not sure what the solution would be.
I've read different things depending on the state, but it looks like that's the case for Florida:
Agreed that it doesn't seem practical.However, the new law does allow DCF [dept of children and families] to designate a person to receive funds on behalf of children whose parent fails a drug test. This could include an immediate family member.
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/201...pients-new-law
Neither does forcing a potential welfare recipient to come up with the funds to take a drug test before getting reimbursed later.
Exactly. Especially here in Texas you would be required to get to work (despite the many stereotypes that they don't work lol), and those jobs also send you on a drug test, much of the time anyway.
Your not for keeping the business community going?
Next they will drug test you before you can renew your drivers license.
which head?
I'm more concerned about false positives. Anyone who has had one knows how screwed up it is.
lol the money was meant for groceries,etc. Not meant for a new pair of Air Force Ones.
Yes yes......it's always a stepwise process. First this, then that......
So when you give your teen 20 dollars to go see Cars you really expect that money to end up at the box office?
Next they will drug test people before they can get on a plane.Yes yes......it's always a stepwise process. First this, then that......
I was talking about the Katrina victims and their FEMA credit cards. I'm not sure how their level of responsibility compares to that of my teenager.
I'll lay odds they your teenager is more responsible than what I heard going on with those credit cards.
A good wager. I do feel the government was complicit though. It's not prudent to hand an arsonist a gas can with matches and then hope for the best afterwards.
"what I heard going on with those credit cards."
the old St Ronnie's Welfare Queen slander. You're much more worried about fraudulent abuse of welfare than you are about the bank's fraudulent foreclosures and MERS' rape of property laws.
Paul Walker intends to add Wisconsin to the list of states who trample the 4th Amendment and waste the public's money on a social problem of marginal dimensions:
http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/12/sc...26+Run+Blog%29A 2003 case out of Michigan established that “su ionless” drug testing for prospective social welfare beneficiaries represented a violation of their personal liberties. The 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in that case that drug testing can be imposed on an applicant only if there is reasonable su ion of wrongdoing.That's how it should be. There's no reason to treat food stamp recipients or collectors of unemployment benefits (for which they paid unemployment insurance) as moral defectives. You'd expect Walker, who in 2012 hailed the rise of a new class of "libertarian" governors to Reason, to grok that.
There's also a question of cost, too. Walker is supposed to be tight with a penny, right? That's part of his, er, charm.
Yet his sort of drug-testing is not only repellent on ethical grounds, it's a clear waste of money. If a recent program in Missouri is any indication, Wisconsin will be collecting urine by the bucketful to catch very few bad actors (and that assumes smoking dope, say, should be a reason to pull somebody's benefits). Last year, Missouri started testing suspected drug users (note: suspected, meaning there was at least some hypothetical reason to think a person was using drugs). The state ended up spending $500,000 to test 636 people, of which 20 were found to be using. So around 3 percent of suspects tested positive and each test cost around $786. Before courts ruled Florida's drug-testing regime illegal, the Sunshine State spent $115,000 on piss tests and ended up coughing up $600,000 in reimbursements to applicants who had been denied benefits.
or so say the liberal elitists at Reason
Texas follows suit, long after it proved to be a waste of money in FL and UT:
http://abc13.com/archive/9060392/
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
